High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-31Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set asid...

Shajahir v. Regional Transport Authority (Thiruvananthapuram Rural) and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority; RKV Motors and Timbers (Pvt) Ltd

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.23450 of 2019 (E)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.MUHAM MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date: 2019-10-31
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned orders are set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Registry shall return the proceedings of the State Transport Authority forthwith.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; proceedings to be returned to the State Transport Authority.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shajahir

Respondents

The Regional Transport Authority (Thiruvananthapuram Rural)
The Secretary (Thiruvananthapuram Rural)
RKV Motors and Timbers (Pvt) Ltd
M. S. Rajan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.V. Gopinathan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Millu Dandapani
• SRGP Sheeja C S

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shajahir, the petitioner in WP(C).No.23450 of 2019, challenges Ext.P4 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, and the consequent Ext.P7 order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, concerning the settlement of timings for stage carriage KL-16/F-5508. The Tribunal, in a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, set aside the earlier timing settlement of 28.1.2015 (Ext.P2) after an objection raised by the third respondent, M.S. Rajan / R.K.V. Motors and Timbers. The writ petition contends that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing reconsideration of a revision application to challenge Ext.P2, when there was no challenge to Ext.P2 itself, and that Rule 141(3) of the Kerala MV Rules, 1989 prohibits appealing or revising more than one order. The petitioner further argues that Rule 212 empowers only the initial timing settlement and cannot be reopened by objections, and that the remedy lies in challenging Ext.P2 through Sections 89/90 rather than re-opening. The involvement of Shajahir in the timing conference cannot confer jurisdiction for an illegal action. The High Court ultimately holds that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order reconsideration in this context and that the impugned orders are unsustainable, allowing the petition and directing the Registry to return the proceedings to the State Transport Authority.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Rule 141(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989Rule 145(7) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989Sections 89/90, Motor Vehicles Act (as applicable)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 (STA order) and Ext.P7 (RTA order) were issued after the Tribunal's order to reconsider; there was no challenge to Ext.P2; the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reconsider the revision under Section 90; Rule 141(3) of the Kerala MV Rules prohibits appeals or revisions regarding more than one order; the remedy is to challenge Ext.P2 under Sections 89/90, not to reopen the prior settlement via a subsequent order; there is no power vested in the State or Regional Transport Authority to review its own order after Rule 212; Shajahir’s participation in the timing conference cannot confer jurisdiction or validate an illegal action; the writ petition should be allowed and the impugned orders set aside, with proceedings returned to the State Transport Authority.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Rule 212 allows scheduling revisions in the public interest, citing factors such as changes in railway timings, variation in permits, or other special circumstances under Rule 145(7). They argue the objector's remedy is to challenge Ext.P2, and the Tribunal's direction to reconsider Ext.P3 is within its jurisdiction to correct timings; the possibility of delay and the need to address legitimate public interests justify reconsideration; Shajahir’s later participation does not create jurisdiction but reflects procedural steps. The coercive point is that the revision mechanism exists to address concerns arising from initial settlements.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Krishnankutty v. John	[1992] KHC 464	Positive	Division Bench held there is no power to review or reopen an order by objection after a settlement under Rule 212; supports the proposition that RTAs cannot review their own orders.
M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and Another	[1995] KHC 214	Positive	Held there is no power to review/reopen a settled timing order by objection post-Rule 212; supports the High Court's view on lack of jurisdiction to revisit earlier orders.
W.P.(C) 20193/2014	W.P.(C) 20193/2014	Mentioned Only	Exhibit reference; judgment is cited as an exhibit, not used in the core reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shajahir v. Regional Transport Authority (Thiruvananthapuram Rural) and Secretary, Regional Transport Authority; RKV Motors and Timbers (Pvt) Ltd and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.23450 OF 2019(E)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SHAJAHIR AGED 40 YEARS NELLI VILA VEEDU, KAKKODU, NJARAIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** |||**BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR**| |---|---|---| |**DENT/S**|**:**|| |**1**||**THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY**| |||**(THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL), MAMAM, ATTINGAL, PIN -**| |||**695 101.**| |**2**||**THE SECTETARY**| |||**(THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL), MAMAM, ATTINGAL, PIN -**| |||**695 101.**| |**3**||**RKV MOTORS AND TIMBERS (PVT) LTD,**| |||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR R. SAROJINI,**| |||**RKV BUILDINGS, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD,**| |||**THIRUVANANTHAPURM - 695 023.**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **4 M. S. RAJAN** **SYAM NIVAS, KADAMUKKU, PULLAYIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 601.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** **SRGP SHEEJA C S** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-102019, THE COURT ON 31-10-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.23450 of 2019 ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 31[st] day of October, 2019 This writ petition is filed by an existing stage carriage operator challenging Ext.P4 order, dated 12.4.2019, of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and consequential Ext.P7 order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. 2. The Tribunal passed the impugned order in a revision filed under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, dated 10.3.2015. Ext.P3 is the said order passed by the Secretary rejecting the objection raised by the third respondentM/s.R.K.V.Motors and Timbers (P) Ltd. against settlement of timings in respect of stage carriage No.KL-16/F-5508, presently operated by the writ petitioner-Shajahir. The ## **`Wpc 23450/2019`** ## **-:3:-** objection of R.K.V.Motors was rejected. The parties are hereafter referred to by their names. 3. The revision was filed by R.K.V.Motors only against the order rejecting their objection and not against the original order fixing settlement of timings dated 28.1.2015. 4. The Tribunal allowed the revision and ordered that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority shall reconsider the application for revision of timings submitted by the fourth respondent herein (M.S.Rajan) in the light of the objections raised by R.K.V.Motors. The writ petitioner-Shajahir purchased the aforesaid vehicle from Rajan. 5. Thereafter, in a meeting convened, in which Shajahir also had taken part, settlement of timing was revised. Shajahir is having a grievance against settlement of timings. Therefore, apart from challenging the order of the Tribunal, Shajahir also challenges the ## **`Wpc 23450/2019`** ## **-:4:-** revised settlement of timing produced as Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is dated 1.8.2019. 6. I shall first advert to the challenge laid against the order of the Tribunal. The challenge before the Tribunal was against the decision dated 10.3.2015 produced as Ext.P3. This decision arises from an objection raised to the Settlement of Timings fixed on 28.1.2015 produced as Ext.P2. The Tribunal, in fact, exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order by ordering reconsideration of the application for revision of timings fixed as per Ext.P2. It is to be noted that there was no challenge against Ext.P2. The challenge was only against the order passed on an objection raised against Ext.P2. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have ordered reconsideration of the application for revision of timings. Further, under Rule 141(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 no appeal or revision shall relate to more than one order. ## **`Wpc 23450/2019`** ## **-:5:-** Therefore, the Tribunal could not have interfered with Ext.P2 without there being a challenge thereto. 7. The question, therefore, that arises is whether the Tribunal could have directed reconsideration of the order passed, on an objection raised against revision of timings. This Court invariably sees that many objections are being raised after the settlement of timings arrived in a timing conference. Rule 212 states that the State or the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time by general order/special order, prescribe a schedule of timings for each stage carriage. It also prescribes that an opportunity of hearing should be given to interested permit holders. Once settlement of timings is arrived by invoking Rule 212, it cannot be reopened or reviewed by raising an objection thereafter. The remedy of the aggrieved is to invoke jurisdiction of the Tribunal either under Section 89 or 90 as the case may be. There is no power vested with the State or ## **`Wpc 23450/2019`** ## **-:6:-** Regional Transport Authority to review its own order, through an objection filed, after an order was passed under Rule 212. (See judgments of the Division Bench of Court in **Krishnankutty v. John [1992 KHC 464]** and **M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and Another [1995 KHC 214]** . The question, therefore, that arises is within what span of time one could invoke Rule 212 for revision of timings. To invoke Rule 212, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority must be satisfied of the existence of facts which are required to consider revision of timings. The factors like, issuance of new permits on the route, modification of route, or on account of geographical constraints etc. Rule 145(7) has a guiding factor for the Transport Authorities to act upon revision of existing timings. It states that revision of existing timings must be, having regard to the interest of public under special circumstances like, change in the railway timings, ## **`Wpc 23450/2019`** ## **-:7:-** change in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of routes etc. It is only when those factors exist, jurisdiction under Rule 212 can be invoked to prescribe revision of timings. Therefore, the State or the Regional Transport Authority must be satisfied with existence of facts as above or similar. The State or Regional Transport Authority cannot revise the timings on a mere request by an operator. 8. In light of the discussions as above, I am of the considered view that R.K.V.Motors could not have raised an objection to review Ext.P2 settlement of timings. The remedy of R.K.V.Motors is to challenge Ext.P2 in appropriate manner. The Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction or power to review the earlier settlement of timings based on the objection raised subsequently. ## **`Wpc 23450/2019`** ## **-:8:-** 9. The third respondent R.K.V.Motors is at liberty to challenge Ext.P2 order on any ground including the ground on which this writ petition is being decided. Tribunal shall consider the application for delay, if it is permissible, in the light of the fact that the issue got involved in a litigation before this Court and the Tribunal from the year 2015. 10. The learned Senior Counsel points out participation of Shajahir in the subsequent timing conference convened, pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. Participation in the timing conference cannot confer any jurisdiction or authority to legitimate an illegal action as a legal action. Further, it is pointed out that subsequent decision was taken pursuant to the direction of Tribunal based on the consent of Shajahir. It is true, in the order it is stated that the order was passed based on consent. The Government Pleader was directed to get instructions in that regard. ``` Wpc 23450/2019 ``` ## **-:9:-** The learned Government Pleader made available before this Court the proceedings leading to Ext.P7 order. Except signing the proceedings, nowhere it can be seen that the petitiioner agreed for the timings pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the writ petition is only to be allowed. The impugned orders are therefore, set aside. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. The Registry shall return the proceedings of the State Transport Authority forthwith. **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** ms Wpc 23450/2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 24.08.2020. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FINALIZING AND ISSUING TIMINGS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.03.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.88/2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.08.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE THE PETITIONER DATED 02.08.2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2019. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT-R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED29.08.2014 IN W.P.(C) 20193/2014. EXHIBIT-R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMO IN MVARP 88/2015 DATED 07.-5.2015. EXHIBIT-R3(c) PHOTOCOPY OF THAT TIMING DATED 12.01.2016.**